[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150626212128.GJ15805@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:21:28 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: [PATCH percpu/for-4.3] percpu: update incorrect comment for
this_cpu_*() operations
this_cpu_*() ops have been protected against both preemption and
interrupts for quite a while now. We apparently forgot to update the
comment. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
---
include/linux/percpu-defs.h | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu-defs.h
@@ -488,10 +488,8 @@ do { \
#define __this_cpu_dec_return(pcp) __this_cpu_add_return(pcp, -1)
/*
- * Operations with implied preemption protection. These operations can be
- * used without worrying about preemption. Note that interrupts may still
- * occur while an operation is in progress and if the interrupt modifies
- * the variable too then RMW actions may not be reliable.
+ * Operations with implied preemption/interrupt protection. These
+ * operations can be used without worrying about preemption or interrupt.
*/
#define this_cpu_read(pcp) __pcpu_size_call_return(this_cpu_read_, pcp)
#define this_cpu_write(pcp, val) __pcpu_size_call(this_cpu_write_, pcp, val)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists